Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Mantus · 12-10-2003, 10:56 PM

Giltwist, sorry for not responding here for a while. I have been working on the Modal Ontological Argument for the past few days. As a break let me take another stab at trying to explain the flaw in St. Thomas Aquinas' argument. My last attempt ended with nitpicking about unrelated subjects, hopefully this will go better.

The flawed cosmological argument embodies Aquinas’ arguments.

The cosmological argument:

We assume that everything needs a purpose. Purpose is defined as a reason to exist which is given by another object. For example a gear exist because a clock exists. A clock exists because humanity exists. If we didn’t exist the clock would not exist. So the assumption is made that this has to stop somewhere because sooner or later some one is going to ask: why does it all exist? So some one came up with the idea that world exists because a deity exist who is outside “it all” and therefore doesn’t follow our rules of purpose.

The critique:

- Objects exist because of god. If it is conceivable that god exists with it’s own purpose then it is equally conceivable that objects exit with their own purpose as well.

- God is as complex as the world. If the complexity of god can exist without purpose then it is equally possible that the complexity of the world can exists without its own purpose.

- The world is the sum of all objects in it. If everything is One then purpose is a flawed concept. Purpose is an allusion created by our minds as we try to subdivide the world in order to try to understand it better. To use Giltwist’s analogy, we are trying to subdivide a sphere into circles.

- There is no need for god if infinity is introduced to the world. Such a concept can be conceived as a an infinite chain of purpose or circular infinity where: X because of Z because of Y because of X. In such a case there would be no need for G as there would never be an end to the chain of purpose.

- If creation did happen from an outside non-purpose bound entity. The entity does not need to be a deity. It could simply be some other phenomenon.

Lastly I would like to state that I am not trying to disprove the concept of god, as that cannot happen. I am trying to illustrate that we have no objective knowledge of a deity and therefore the existence of one remains a hypothesis. I am also pointing out that the hypothesis in question (St. Thomas Aquinas arguments) is unlikely or at least as likely as any other hypothesis out there.

12-10-2003, 10:56 PM	#123 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Giltwist, sorry for not responding here for a while. I have been working on the Modal Ontological Argument for the past few days. As a break let me take another stab at trying to explain the flaw in St. Thomas Aquinas' argument. My last attempt ended with nitpicking about unrelated subjects, hopefully this will go better. The flawed cosmological argument embodies Aquinas’ arguments. The cosmological argument: We assume that everything needs a purpose. Purpose is defined as a reason to exist which is given by another object. For example a gear exist because a clock exists. A clock exists because humanity exists. If we didn’t exist the clock would not exist. So the assumption is made that this has to stop somewhere because sooner or later some one is going to ask: why does it all exist? So some one came up with the idea that world exists because a deity exist who is outside “it all” and therefore doesn’t follow our rules of purpose. The critique: - Objects exist because of god. If it is conceivable that god exists with it’s own purpose then it is equally conceivable that objects exit with their own purpose as well. - God is as complex as the world. If the complexity of god can exist without purpose then it is equally possible that the complexity of the world can exists without its own purpose. - The world is the sum of all objects in it. If everything is One then purpose is a flawed concept. Purpose is an allusion created by our minds as we try to subdivide the world in order to try to understand it better. To use Giltwist’s analogy, we are trying to subdivide a sphere into circles. - There is no need for god if infinity is introduced to the world. Such a concept can be conceived as a an infinite chain of purpose or circular infinity where: X because of Z because of Y because of X. In such a case there would be no need for G as there would never be an end to the chain of purpose. - If creation did happen from an outside non-purpose bound entity. The entity does not need to be a deity. It could simply be some other phenomenon. Lastly I would like to state that I am not trying to disprove the concept of god, as that cannot happen. I am trying to illustrate that we have no objective knowledge of a deity and therefore the existence of one remains a hypothesis. I am also pointing out that the hypothesis in question (St. Thomas Aquinas arguments) is unlikely or at least as likely as any other hypothesis out there.